✅ Yesterday's post [link] led to a lively - and lengthy! - commentary on the voting/approval process for the SAFE Board merger muck-up. Here's how it ended:
Yes, IMO its bad for both SAFE members and Boeing members. As a SAFE member I would absolutely vote no.
😎 What was the SAFE Board thinking? As required by law, the majority of SAFE members are not going to vote for this merger mistake...
The SAFE Board is "(fill in the blank)".
✔ As the financial experts see it!:
1] Better rates YES ◻ NO ❎
2] Lower operating costs YES ◻ NO ❎
3] Enhanced technology YES ◻ NO ❎
4] More branches/ATMs YES ◻ NO ❎
5] Retain local ownership/control YES ◻ NO ❎
6] Assured increase in community support YES ◻ NO ❎
7] In-state California regulation YES ◻ NO ❎
8] Return of capital to SAFE members YES ◻ NO ❎
9] Member dialogue prior to agreement YES ◻ NO ❎
10] Will strengthen the Sacramento area 😎 YES ◻ NO ❎
✔ If 122,501 SAFE member-owners do not vote in favor of this "nothing-but-nonsense" merger, will DFPI follow the law and disapprove the merger or overrule SAFE members and the best interests of the people of California?
😎 
2:52pm You commented: "Not sure if SAFE hired someone to help with due diligence, but if they did, they should get their money back."
So at least we both agree that the merger is a really bad deal for SAFE members.
Take it you too would vote "NO" if you were a SAFE member!